They were Giants playing against ants and slow white guys. The athletic competition in those days had no chance against and those two giants. They would never put those number up in the modern era.
-
-
learn from your history
respect your elders
evolutionComment -
Not true.Comment -
Other than in baseball no athlete from 50 years ago is anywhere near as goodComment -
russell greatest of all time. not wilt. beyond inflated stats because he was a ball-hog worse than kobe. championships are the only important thing and wilt didn't win his first until russell was almost retired and his second russell was actually announcing that series. don't say supporting cast for russell because even when wilt played with guys like nate thurmond, hal greer, kareem, jerry west, elgin baylor, etc and all hall of famers the best he could do was 2 champs? no rivalry. russell filled all his fingers with champ rings plus 1
and to those that say the talent could never stand up to today's game. no isht. it's evolution. how about when bannister broke the 4 minute mile? people couldn't believe it, and now that's a starting point to be considered a legit runner. would babe ruth be able to be as good of a hitter today? who knows. he's still one of the best, if not the best, hitters of all time.
wilt and russell are both in the discussion of top players of all time. russell could have had wilt's number's, but he was smart enough to realize that if he gave up some personal stats and concentrated on the team he could wind up with what truly defines a great player, championships rings. 11. count 'em.Comment -
How many hall of gamers did Russell play with AT ONE TIME? Best of all time?
Wilt played with Kareem? O RLY? Sick argument.
Kareem carried Milwaukee with a washed up Big O to a title and everyone only remembers him as a Laker. It's absurd that he could be underrated with the numbers he put up but he's the best center ever and no one considers him to be.Comment -
todays 7footers are garbageComment -
Typical Bostonian.
Wilt was TWICE the athlete Russell was. Russell was a 220 pounds..........Wilt was 275 pounds.....and taller, and stronger, and faster, etc. etc. Russell would get his 220 pound azz beat at "Center" in today's game....BEAT.......Wilt would still dominate.
But, if "championships are the only important thing"....as you say:
1. Robert Horry was better than M.J. (7 titles to 6)
2. You'll admit that Magic was better than Bird
(five titles to 3)
Russell was very good on D and grabbing rebounds, but marginal on offense. Wilt OWNED Russel on offense and was, at the very least, an equal rebounder.
Bottom line..........in modern day basketball the Lakers are the NBA
.........while Boston was irrelevant for a 1/4 CENTURY.
Comment -
Look at the comment I responded too.
Comment -
Typical Bostonian..Typical Bostonian.
Wilt was TWICE the athlete Russell was. Russell was a 220 pounds..........Wilt was 275 pounds.....and taller, and stronger, and faster, etc. etc. Russell would get his 220 pound azz beat at "Center" in today's game....BEAT.......Wilt would still dominate.
But, if "championships are the only important thing"....as you say:
1. Robert Horry was better than M.J. (7 titles to 6)
2. You'll admit that Magic was better than Bird (five titles to 3)
Russell was very good on D and grabbing rebounds, but marginal on offense. Wilt OWNED Russel on offense and was, at the very least, an equal rebounder.
Bottom line..........in modern day basketball the Lakers are the NBA.........while Boston was irrelevant for a 1/4 CENTURY. 
Typical LA fan, look at your argument. Nothing but pro LA, at least I can make references about players from other sports and even rivalry teams. Tell me when LA wins all four major titles in less than a decade.
And nice math. 275 is not TWICE 220. Russell had the heart and the determination of a champion. Wilt had the heart of a pussy. He probably could have dominated Russell more, but didn't care about anything except personal stats. He might not have been the greatest center ever, but he was probably THE greatest ball hog of all time (well maybe second to Kobe). Hence the championships difference which isn't a difference of 1 or 2..its NINE. 9! Jordan (likely the greatest ever no matter who you talk to) had a hall of fame coach and two hall of famers in pippen and rodman (who might be best D player of all time or at least in the argument of top 3). Playing with hall of famers to get titles doesn't win that argument.
And yeah no isht Horry has 7 titles, what an asinine argument. Reach a little more. He did a certain job remarkably well, which was come up with clutch shots. That's why his services were always in demand for teams looking to acquire that last key player. Teams that were already on their way to winning. It's pretty easy to collect titles when you have a top career winning percentage and only play on one losing (40-42 phoenix suns) team once in your whole career. That doesn't mean Horry was the main reason those teams were winning, he was the complimentary winning piece that we love to call that 'role player'. When you look at career stats it's not even remotely close and that's why titles doesn't matter between Horry and Jordan. Again, it's a difference of 1 between them, not NINE like Wilt and Russell.
I digress, back to why Wilt should have been better and won more titles, but didn't and that's why he's not better than Russell..let's see. Per game totals for careers:
Wilt: 30.1 PPG on 22.5 FGA/game, w/22.9 RB and 4.4 AST
Russell: 15.1 PPG on 13.4 FGA/game w/22.5 RB and 4.3 AST
Wow. Crushing. The rebounds and assists are a wash. Easy to score 30 a game when you take over 22 attempts. Pathetic that it was a higher scoring total. Not to mention if Wilt was so offensively supreme, why is Russell's offensive efficiency that much better? Because Russell knew when it was his time to score and when it was time to do his real job which was clog the lane and be a beast and open up scoring for others.
And nope. It's not from FTs either. In fact that makes Wilt look even worse. He had almost 12 FTAs per game with a little over half made, Russell had just under 6 FTAs per game w/a bit over half made.
Not buying your supreme argument. IF you want to be a homer, be a homer, but there's no way to make Wilt look like the better player over Russell. Not to mention Wilt wouldn't even remotely SNIFF 100 today. Offensive goaltending was still allowed then! Look it up! At least 20 or 30 of his point were really his teammates that he tipped in.
Let's see what ya got.Comment -
Luc Longley was the best player ever
/thread
see ya next seasonComment
I'm honored.
